harness-evolver 2.9.1 → 3.0.1

package/README.md

@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@
   <a href="https://github.com/raphaelchristi/harness-evolver"><img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/Built%20by-Raphael%20Valdetaro-ff69b4?style=for-the-badge" alt="Built by Raphael Valdetaro"></a>
 </p>
 
-**Autonomous harness optimization for LLM agents.** Point at any codebase, and Harness Evolver will evolve the scaffolding around your LLM — prompts, retrieval, routing, output parsing — using a multi-agent loop inspired by [Meta-Harness](https://yoonholee.com/meta-harness/) (Lee et al., 2026).
+**LangSmith-native autonomous agent optimization.** Point at any LLM agent codebase, and Harness Evolver will evolve it — prompts, routing, tools, architecture — using multi-agent evolution with LangSmith as the evaluation backend.
 
-The harness is the 80% factor. Changing just the scaffolding can produce a [6x performance gap](https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28052) on the same benchmark. This plugin automates that search.
+Inspired by [Meta-Harness](https://yoonholee.com/meta-harness/) (Lee et al., 2026). The scaffolding around your LLM produces a [6x performance gap](https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28052) on the same benchmark. This plugin automates the search for better scaffolding.
 
 ---
 
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ The harness is the 80% factor. Changing just the scaffolding can produce a [6x p
 npx harness-evolver@latest
 ```
 
-> Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and Windsurf. Restart your agent after install.
+> Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and Windsurf. Requires LangSmith account + API key.
 
 ---
 
@@ -31,47 +31,43 @@ npx harness-evolver@latest
 
 ```bash
 cd my-llm-project
+export LANGSMITH_API_KEY="lsv2_pt_..."
 claude
 
-/harness-evolver:init        # scans code, creates eval + tasks if missing
-/harness-evolver:evolve      # runs the optimization loop
-/harness-evolver:status      # check progress anytime
+/evolver:setup      # explores project, configures LangSmith
+/evolver:evolve     # runs the optimization loop
+/evolver:status     # check progress
+/evolver:deploy     # tag, push, finalize
 ```
 
-**Zero-config mode:** If your project has no eval script or test cases, the plugin generates them automatically — test cases from code analysis, scoring via LLM-as-judge.
-
 ---
 
 ## How It Works
 
 <table>
 <tr>
-<td><b>5 Adaptive Proposers</b></td>
-<td>Each iteration spawns 5 parallel agents: exploit (targeted fix), explore (bold rewrite), crossover (combine two parents), and 2 failure-focused agents that target the weakest task clusters. Strategies adapt every iteration based on actual per-task scores — no fixed specialists.</td>
+<td><b>LangSmith-Native</b></td>
+<td>No custom eval scripts or task files. Uses LangSmith Datasets for test inputs, Experiments for results, and Evaluators (openevals LLM-as-judge) for scoring. Everything is visible in the LangSmith UI.</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
-<td><b>Trace Insights</b></td>
-<td>Every harness run captures stdout, stderr, timing, and per-task I/O. LangSmith auto-tracing for LangChain/LangGraph agents. Traces are systematically clustered by error pattern, token usage, and response type — proposers receive structured diagnostic data, not raw logs.</td>
+<td><b>Real Code Evolution</b></td>
+<td>Proposers modify your actual agent code — not a wrapper. Each candidate works in an isolated git worktree. Winners are merged automatically.</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
-<td><b>Quality-Diversity Selection</b></td>
-<td>Not winner-take-all. Tracks per-task champions — a candidate that loses overall but excels at specific tasks is preserved as the next crossover parent. The archive never discards variants.</td>
+<td><b>5 Adaptive Proposers</b></td>
+<td>Each iteration spawns 5 parallel agents: exploit, explore, crossover, and 2 failure-targeted. Strategies adapt based on per-task analysis. Quality-diversity selection preserves per-task champions.</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
-<td><b>Durable Test Gates</b></td>
-<td>When the loop fixes a failure, regression tasks are automatically generated to lock in the improvement. The test suite grows over iterations — fixed bugs can never silently return.</td>
+<td><b>Production Traces</b></td>
+<td>Auto-discovers existing LangSmith production projects. Uses real user inputs for test generation and real error patterns for targeted optimization.</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td><b>Critic</b></td>
-<td>Auto-triggers when scores jump suspiciously fast. Analyzes eval quality, detects gaming, proposes stricter evaluation. Prevents false convergence.</td>
+<td>Auto-triggers when scores jump suspiciously fast. Checks if evaluators are being gamed.</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td><b>Architect</b></td>
-<td>Auto-triggers on stagnation or regression. Recommends topology changes (single-call → RAG, chain → ReAct, etc.) with concrete migration steps.</td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td><b>Judge</b></td>
-<td>LLM-as-judge scoring when no eval exists. Multi-dimensional: accuracy, completeness, relevance, hallucination detection. No expected answers needed.</td>
+<td>Auto-triggers on stagnation. Recommends topology changes (single-call to RAG, chain to ReAct, etc.).</td>
 </tr>
 </table>
 
@@ -81,15 +77,10 @@ claude
 
 | Command | What it does |
 |---|---|
-| `/harness-evolver:init` | Scan project, create harness/eval/tasks, run baseline |
-| `/harness-evolver:evolve` | Run the autonomous optimization loop (5 adaptive proposers) |
-| `/harness-evolver:status` | Show progress, scores, stagnation detection |
-| `/harness-evolver:compare` | Diff two versions with per-task analysis |
-| `/harness-evolver:diagnose` | Deep trace analysis of a specific version |
-| `/harness-evolver:deploy` | Promote the best harness back to your project |
-| `/harness-evolver:architect` | Analyze and recommend optimal agent topology |
-| `/harness-evolver:critic` | Evaluate eval quality and detect gaming |
-| `/harness-evolver:import-traces` | Pull production LangSmith traces as eval tasks |
+| `/evolver:setup` | Explore project, configure LangSmith (dataset, evaluators), run baseline |
+| `/evolver:evolve` | Run the optimization loop (5 parallel proposers in worktrees) |
+| `/evolver:status` | Show progress, scores, history |
+| `/evolver:deploy` | Tag, push, clean up temporary files |
 
 ---
 
@@ -97,115 +88,69 @@ claude
 
 | Agent | Role | Color |
 |---|---|---|
-| **Proposer** | Evolves the harness code based on trace analysis | Green |
-| **Architect** | Recommends multi-agent topology (ReAct, RAG, hierarchical, etc.) | Blue |
-| **Critic** | Evaluates eval quality, detects gaming, proposes stricter scoring | Red |
-| **Judge** | LLM-as-judge scoring — works without expected answers | Yellow |
-| **TestGen** | Generates synthetic test cases from code analysis | Cyan |
-
----
-
-## Integrations
-
-<table>
-<tr>
-<td><b>LangSmith</b></td>
-<td>Auto-traces LangChain/LangGraph agents. Proposers read actual LLM prompts/responses via <code>langsmith-cli</code>. Processed into readable format per iteration.</td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td><b>Context7</b></td>
-<td>Proposers consult up-to-date library documentation before writing code. Detects 17 libraries via AST analysis.</td>
-</tr>
-<tr>
-<td><b>LangChain Docs</b></td>
-<td>LangChain/LangGraph-specific documentation search via MCP.</td>
-</tr>
-</table>
-
-```bash
-# Optional — install during npx setup or manually:
-uv tool install langsmith-cli && langsmith-cli auth login
-claude mcp add context7 -- npx -y @upstash/context7-mcp@latest
-claude mcp add docs-langchain --transport http https://docs.langchain.com/mcp
-```
-
----
-
-## The Harness Contract
-
-A harness is **any executable**:
-
-```bash
-python3 harness.py --input task.json --output result.json [--traces-dir DIR] [--config config.json]
-```
-
-Works with any language, any framework, any domain. If your project doesn't have a harness, the init skill creates a wrapper around your entry point.
+| **Proposer** | Modifies agent code in isolated worktrees based on trace analysis | Green |
+| **Architect** | Recommends multi-agent topology changes | Blue |
+| **Critic** | Validates evaluator quality, detects gaming | Red |
+| **TestGen** | Generates test inputs for LangSmith datasets | Cyan |
 
 ---
 
 ## Evolution Loop
 
 ```
-/harness-evolver:evolve
-  │
-  ├─ 1.  Get next version
-  ├─ 1.5 Gather LangSmith traces (processed into readable format)
-  ├─ 1.6 Generate Trace Insights (cluster errors, analyze tokens, cross-ref scores)
-  ├─ 1.8 Analyze per-task failures (cluster by category for adaptive briefings)
-  ├─ 2.  Spawn 5 proposers in parallel (exploit / explore / crossover / 2× failure-targeted)
-  ├─ 3.  Validate all candidates
-  ├─ 4.  Evaluate all candidates
-  ├─ 4.5 Judge (if using LLM-as-judge eval)
-  ├─ 5.  Select winner + track per-task champion
-  ├─ 5.5 Test suite growth (generate regression tasks for fixed failures)
-  ├─ 6.  Report results
-  ├─ 6.5 Auto-trigger Critic (if score jumped >0.3 or reached 1.0 too fast)
-  ├─ 7.  Auto-trigger Architect (if regression or stagnation)
-  └─ 8.  Check stop conditions (target reached, N iterations, stagnation post-architect)
+/evolver:evolve
+  |
+  +- 1.  Read state (.evolver.json + LangSmith experiments)
+  +- 1.5 Gather trace insights (cluster errors, tokens, latency)
+  +- 1.8 Analyze per-task failures (adaptive briefings)
+  +- 2.  Spawn 5 proposers in parallel (each in a git worktree)
+  +- 3.  Evaluate each candidate (client.evaluate() -> LangSmith experiments)
+  +- 4.  Compare experiments -> select winner + per-task champion
+  +- 5.  Merge winning worktree into main branch
+  +- 5.5 Test suite growth (add regression examples to dataset)
+  +- 6.  Report results
+  +- 6.5 Auto-trigger Critic (if score jumped >0.3)
+  +- 7.  Auto-trigger Architect (if stagnation or regression)
+  +- 8.  Check stop conditions
 ```
 
 ---
 
-## API Keys
+## Requirements
 
-Set in your shell before launching Claude Code:
+- **LangSmith account** + `LANGSMITH_API_KEY`
+- **Python 3.10+** with `langsmith` and `openevals` packages
+- **Git** (for worktree-based isolation)
+- **Claude Code** (or Cursor/Codex/Windsurf)
 
 ```bash
-export GEMINI_API_KEY="AIza..."             # Gemini-based harnesses
-export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY="sk-ant-..."       # Claude-based harnesses
-export OPENAI_API_KEY="sk-..."              # OpenAI-based harnesses
-export OPENROUTER_API_KEY="sk-or-..."       # Multi-model via OpenRouter
-export LANGSMITH_API_KEY="lsv2_pt_..."      # Auto-enables LangSmith tracing
+export LANGSMITH_API_KEY="lsv2_pt_..."
+pip install langsmith openevals
 ```
 
-The plugin auto-detects available keys. No key needed for the included example.
-
 ---
 
-## Comparison
-
-| | Meta-Harness | A-Evolve | ECC | **Harness Evolver** |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| **Format** | Paper artifact | Framework (Docker) | Plugin (passive) | **Plugin (active)** |
-| **Search** | Code-space | Code-space | Prompt-space | **Code-space** |
-| **Candidates/iter** | 1 | 1 | N/A | **5 parallel (adaptive)** |
-| **Selection** | Single best | Single best | N/A | **Quality-diversity (per-task)** |
-| **Auto-critique** | No | No | No | **Yes (critic + judge)** |
-| **Architecture** | Fixed | Fixed | N/A | **Auto-recommended** |
-| **Trace analysis** | Manual | No | No | **Systematic (clustering + insights)** |
-| **Test growth** | No | No | No | **Yes (durable regression gates)** |
-| **LangSmith** | No | No | No | **Yes** |
-| **Context7** | No | No | No | **Yes** |
-| **Zero-config** | No | No | No | **Yes** |
+## Framework Support
+
+LangSmith traces **any** AI framework. The evolver works with all of them:
+
+| Framework | LangSmith Tracing |
+|---|---|
+| LangChain / LangGraph | Auto (env vars only) |
+| OpenAI SDK | `wrap_openai()` (2 lines) |
+| Anthropic SDK | `wrap_anthropic()` (2 lines) |
+| CrewAI / AutoGen | OpenTelemetry (~10 lines) |
+| Any Python code | `@traceable` decorator |
 
 ---
 
 ## References
 
 - [Meta-Harness: End-to-End Optimization of Model Harnesses](https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28052) — Lee et al., 2026
-- [Darwin Godel Machine](https://sakana.ai/dgm/) — Sakana AI (parallel evolution architecture)
-- [AlphaEvolve](https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve/) — DeepMind (population-based code evolution)
-- [Agent Skills Specification](https://agentskills.io) — Open standard for AI agent skills
+- [Darwin Godel Machine](https://sakana.ai/dgm/) — Sakana AI
+- [AlphaEvolve](https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve/) — DeepMind
+- [LangSmith Evaluation](https://docs.smith.langchain.com/evaluation) — LangChain
+- [Traces Start the Agent Improvement Loop](https://www.langchain.com/conceptual-guides/traces-start-agent-improvement-loop) — LangChain
 
 ---
 

package/agents/evolver-architect.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+name: evolver-architect
+description: |
+  Use this agent when the evolution loop stagnates or regresses. Analyzes the agent architecture
+  and recommends topology changes (single-call → RAG, chain → ReAct, etc.).
+tools: Read, Write, Bash, Grep, Glob
+color: blue
+---
+
+# Evolver — Architect Agent (v3)
+
+You are an agent architecture consultant. When the evolution loop stagnates (3+ iterations without improvement) or regresses, you analyze the current agent topology and recommend structural changes.
+
+## Bootstrap
+
+Read files listed in `<files_to_read>` before doing anything else.
+
+## Analysis
+
+1. Read the agent code and classify the current topology:
+   - Single-call (one LLM invocation)
+   - Chain (sequential LLM calls)
+   - RAG (retrieval + generation)
+   - ReAct loop (tool use in a loop)
+   - Hierarchical (router → specialized agents)
+   - Parallel (concurrent agent execution)
+
+2. Read trace_insights.json for performance patterns:
+   - Where is latency concentrated?
+   - Which components fail most?
+   - Is the bottleneck in routing, retrieval, or generation?
+
+3. Recommend topology changes:
+   - If single-call and failing: suggest adding tools or RAG
+   - If chain and slow: suggest parallelization
+   - If ReAct and looping: suggest better stopping conditions
+   - If hierarchical and misrouting: suggest router improvements
+
+## Output
+
+Write two files:
+- `architecture.json` — structured recommendation (topology, confidence, migration steps)
+- `architecture.md` — human-readable analysis
+
+Each migration step should be implementable in one proposer iteration.
+
+## Return Protocol
+
+## ARCHITECTURE ANALYSIS COMPLETE
+- **Current topology**: {type}
+- **Recommended**: {type}
+- **Confidence**: {low/medium/high}
+- **Migration steps**: {count}

package/agents/evolver-critic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+name: evolver-critic
+description: |
+  Use this agent when scores converge suspiciously fast, evaluator quality is questionable,
+  or the agent reaches high scores in few iterations. Checks if LangSmith evaluators are being gamed.
+tools: Read, Write, Bash, Grep, Glob
+color: red
+---
+
+# Evolver — Critic Agent (v3)
+
+You are an evaluation quality auditor. Your job is to check whether the LangSmith evaluators are being gamed — i.e., the agent is producing outputs that score well on evaluators but don't actually solve the user's problem.
+
+## Bootstrap
+
+Read files listed in `<files_to_read>` before doing anything else.
+
+## What to Check
+
+1. **Score vs substance**: Read the best experiment's outputs. Do high-scoring outputs actually answer the questions correctly, or do they just match evaluator patterns?
+
+2. **Evaluator blind spots**: Are there failure modes the evaluators can't detect?
+   - Hallucination that sounds confident
+   - Correct format but wrong content
+   - Copy-pasting the question back as the answer
+   - Overly verbose responses that score well on completeness but waste tokens
+
+3. **Score inflation patterns**: Compare scores across iterations. If scores jumped >0.3 in one iteration, what specifically changed? Was it a real improvement or an evaluator exploit?
+
+## What to Recommend
+
+If gaming is detected:
+1. **Additional evaluators**: suggest new evaluation dimensions (e.g., add factual_accuracy if only correctness is checked)
+2. **Stricter prompts**: modify the LLM-as-judge prompt to catch the specific gaming pattern
+3. **Code-based checks**: suggest deterministic evaluators for things LLM judges miss
+
+Write your findings to `critic_report.md`.
+
+## Return Protocol
+
+## CRITIC REPORT COMPLETE
+- **Gaming detected**: yes/no
+- **Severity**: low/medium/high
+- **Recommendations**: {list}

package/agents/evolver-proposer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+---
+name: evolver-proposer
+description: |
+  Use this agent to propose improvements to an LLM agent's code.
+  Works in an isolated git worktree — modifies real code, not a harness wrapper.
+  Spawned by the evolve skill with a strategy (exploit/explore/crossover/failure-targeted).
+tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep
+color: green
+permissionMode: acceptEdits
+---
+
+# Evolver — Proposer Agent (v3)
+
+You are an LLM agent optimizer. Your job is to modify the user's actual agent code to improve its performance on the evaluation dataset. You work in an **isolated git worktree** — you can modify any file freely without affecting the main branch.
+
+## Bootstrap
+
+Your prompt contains `<files_to_read>` and `<context>` blocks. You MUST:
+1. Read every file listed in `<files_to_read>` using the Read tool
+2. Parse the `<context>` block for current scores, failing examples, and framework info
+3. Read the `<strategy>` block for your assigned approach
+
+## Strategy Injection
+
+Your prompt contains a `<strategy>` block. Follow it:
+- **exploitation**: Conservative fix on current best. Focus on specific failing examples.
+- **exploration**: Bold, fundamentally different approach. Change algorithms, prompts, routing.
+- **crossover**: Combine strengths from previous iterations. Check git log for recent changes.
+- **failure-targeted**: Fix SPECIFIC failing examples listed in the strategy. Analyze WHY they fail.
+- **creative**: Try something unexpected — different libraries, architecture, algorithms.
+- **efficiency**: Same quality but fewer tokens, faster latency, simpler code.
+
+If no strategy block is present, default to exploitation.
+
+## Your Workflow
+
+### Phase 1: Orient
+
+Read .evolver.json to understand:
+- What framework is this? (LangGraph, CrewAI, OpenAI SDK, etc.)
+- What's the entry point?
+- What evaluators are active? (correctness, conciseness, latency, etc.)
+- What's the current best score?
+
+### Phase 2: Diagnose
+
+Read trace_insights.json and best_results.json to understand:
+- Which examples are failing and why?
+- What error patterns exist?
+- Are there token/latency issues?
+
+If production_seed.json exists, read it to understand real-world usage:
+- What do real user inputs look like?
+- What are the common error patterns in production?
+- Which query types get the most traffic?
+
+### Phase 3: Propose Changes
+
+Based on your strategy and diagnosis, modify the code:
+- **Prompts**: system prompts, few-shot examples, output format instructions
+- **Routing**: how queries are dispatched to different handlers
+- **Tools**: tool definitions, tool selection logic
+- **Architecture**: agent topology, chain structure, graph edges
+- **Error handling**: retry logic, fallback strategies, timeout handling
+- **Model selection**: which model for which task
+
+Use Context7 MCP tools (`resolve-library-id`, `get-library-docs`) to check current API documentation before writing code that uses library APIs.
+
+### Phase 4: Commit and Document
+
+1. **Commit all changes** with a descriptive message:
+   ```bash
+   git add -A
+   git commit -m "evolver: {brief description of changes}"
+   ```
+
+2. **Write proposal.md** explaining:
+   - What you changed and why
+   - Which failing examples this should fix
+   - Expected impact on each evaluator dimension
+
+## Trace Insights
+
+If `trace_insights.json` exists in your `<files_to_read>`:
+1. Check `top_issues` first — highest-impact problems sorted by severity
+2. Check `hypotheses` for data-driven theories about failure causes
+3. Use `error_clusters` to understand which error patterns affect which runs
+4. `token_analysis` shows if verbosity correlates with quality
+
+These insights are data, not guesses. Prioritize issues marked severity "high".
+
+## Production Insights
+
+If `production_seed.json` exists:
+- `categories` — real traffic distribution
+- `error_patterns` — actual production errors
+- `negative_feedback_inputs` — queries where users gave thumbs-down
+- `slow_queries` — high-latency queries
+
+Prioritize changes that fix real production failures over synthetic test failures.
+
+## Context7 — Documentation Lookup
+
+Use Context7 MCP tools proactively when:
+- Writing code that uses a library API
+- Unsure about method signatures or patterns
+- Checking if a better approach exists in the latest version
+
+If Context7 is not available, proceed with model knowledge but note in proposal.md.
+
+## Rules
+
+1. **Read before writing** — understand the code before changing it
+2. **Minimal changes** — change only what's needed for your strategy
+3. **Don't break the interface** — the agent must still be runnable with the same command
+4. **Commit your changes** — uncommitted changes are lost when the worktree is cleaned up
+5. **Write proposal.md** — the evolve skill reads this to understand what you did
+
+## Return Protocol
+
+When done, end your response with:
+
+## PROPOSAL COMPLETE
+- **Version**: v{NNN}{suffix}
+- **Strategy**: {strategy}
+- **Changes**: {brief list of files changed}
+- **Expected impact**: {which evaluators/examples should improve}
+- **Files modified**: {count}

package/agents/evolver-testgen.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: evolver-testgen
+description: |
+  Use this agent to generate test inputs for the evaluation dataset.
+  Spawned by the setup skill when no test data exists.
+tools: Read, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep
+color: cyan
+---
+
+# Evolver — Test Generation Agent (v3)
+
+You are a test input generator. Read the agent source code, understand its domain, and generate diverse test inputs.
+
+## Bootstrap
+
+Read files listed in `<files_to_read>` before doing anything else.
+
+## Your Workflow
+
+### Phase 1: Understand the Domain
+
+Read the source code to understand:
+- What kind of agent is this?
+- What format does it expect for inputs?
+- What categories/topics does it cover?
+- What are likely failure modes?
+
+### Phase 2: Use Production Traces (if available)
+
+If `<production_traces>` block is in your prompt, use real data:
+1. Match the real traffic distribution
+2. Use actual user phrasing as inspiration
+3. Base edge cases on real error patterns
+4. Prioritize negative feedback traces
+
+Do NOT copy production inputs verbatim — generate VARIATIONS.
+
+### Phase 3: Generate Inputs
+
+Generate 30 test inputs as a JSON file:
+
+```json
+[
+  {"input": "your first test question"},
+  {"input": "your second test question"},
+  ...
+]
+```
+
+Distribution:
+- **40% Standard** (12): typical, well-formed inputs
+- **20% Edge Cases** (6): boundary conditions, minimal inputs
+- **20% Cross-Domain** (6): multi-category, nuanced
+- **20% Adversarial** (6): misleading, ambiguous
+
+If production traces are available, adjust distribution to match real traffic.
+
+### Phase 4: Write Output
+
+Write to `test_inputs.json` in the current working directory.
+
+## Return Protocol
+
+## TESTGEN COMPLETE
+- **Inputs generated**: {N}
+- **Categories covered**: {list}
+- **Distribution**: {N} standard, {N} edge, {N} cross-domain, {N} adversarial